DCB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics (Hearing Day 😞)

Le_Kirk

Th1nDiesel said:

2) I have used the same car park on multiple occasions, all without incident - I even have a ticket from a later date (which I may end up using in my evidence pack).
Should I include these in my defence, or save them for the Witness Statement?

If you have read the NEWBIE advice (and I am sure you would have by now) you will know that no evidence goes with a defence it all goes later with the witness statement.

nosferatu1001

Did you clearly state in 2/3 that there was no PCN on the vehicle when you returned? 

Th1nDiesel

Le_Kirk said:

Th1nDiesel said:

2) I have used the same car park on multiple occasions, all without incident - I even have a ticket from a later date (which I may end up using in my evidence pack).
Should I include these in my defence, or save them for the Witness Statement?

If you have read the NEWBIE advice (and I am sure you would have by now) you will know that no evidence goes with a defence it all goes later with the witness statement.

Yes, I know it doesn't go with the defence, I was just wondering if it was worth mentioning in the defence that I was a prior and post incident user of the car park (never again, though!).

Th1nDiesel

nosferatu1001 said:

Did you clearly state in 2/3 that there was no PCN on the vehicle when you returned? 

No, I didn't. Section 2 was a standard Defendent not liable as keeper or driver and section 3 was all about the fluttering ticket.

Redx

Th1nDiesel said:

Le_Kirk said:

Th1nDiesel said:

2) I have used the same car park on multiple occasions, all without incident - I even have a ticket from a later date (which I may end up using in my evidence pack).
Should I include these in my defence, or save them for the Witness Statement?

If you have read the NEWBIE advice (and I am sure you would have by now) you will know that no evidence goes with a defence it all goes later with the witness statement.

Yes, I know it doesn't go with the defence, I was just wondering if it was worth mentioning in the defence that I was a prior and post incident user of the car park (never again, though!).

All that would show is familiarity with the car park , so how does that assist a defence ? Surely it shows that a regular user should be familiar with all the rules ? Plus that would surely be in a WS as observed by Le Kirk ?

Redx

Th1nDiesel said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Did you clearly state in 2/3 that there was no PCN on the vehicle when you returned? 

No, I didn't. Section 2 was a standard Defendent not liable as keeper or driver and section 3 was all about the fluttering ticket.

Then put it in , because a defendant sets the scene in the defence , to open the door to the WS later

nosferatu1001

Simply make a statement that there was not NtD on teh vehicle when you returned. 
Then in the WS you can elaborate if needed. 

Th1nDiesel

Thank you all for your advice. I have made the following addition to my defence (the rest is unchanged):

3.4    On the Defendant’s return to the vehicle there was no Parking Charge Notice attached to the windscreen and no notice to the driver was given. The first the Defendant became aware of the alleged parking charge was on receipt of a Notice To Keeper that was issued forty-five days after the date of the incident.

As per my earlier comment, I'd have kept the ticket and made an appeal had a PCN been left at  the time; I'm assuming this is a bit much for the defence but is it something I can include in the WS?

nosferatu1001

and therefore no notice to driver was given. 
Its a bit much for the defence as it is not a legal argument as to why you are not liable
And be careful not to allege fraud. The SCT will not permit a case to be heard on that basis .

Th1nDiesel

nosferatu1001 said:

and therefore no notice to driver was given. 
Its a bit much for the defence as it is not a legal argument as to why you are not liable
And be careful not to allege fraud. The SCT will not permit a case to be heard on that basis .

I thought that may be the case. I'll leave it as it is, with the small amendment that you noted, then I'll double check it over the weekend and submit it next week.